mg2009

if so, i've lost his point since it appears to contradict previous statements. anyway: http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/06/17/why-chicago-blackhawks-logo-okay-washington-redskins-racist-149937 t

you honestly can't tell the difference between the two?

so can we end this inane little mental excursion yet or is this going to keep being the Happy-Time Imagination Land for the foreseeable future?

johannason is a bigtime prospect. I'd be stunned if he stayed instate.

3-5pm

I believe mcnorton was the only one not to complete, and one or two others weren't finished by the deadline but were shortly afterwords.

I don't see what that has to do with what you quoted, but I go to UND because my department is good, I get instate tuition, I went here before so it was easier to restart and I still knew a ton of people. I don't know why that matters.

RPI is a terrible metric, i agree. Sagarin, pomeroy, etc are pretty good. Head to head UND lost to SUU. UND was a mile better than SUU. Head to head means nothing.

Considering the high proportion of out of state and out of country waiver recipients, i think I large portion of this is being driven by the differences in graduate programs. Business, law and medicine students typically don't get waivers because their services aren't very useful to the university, and med students don't because it's a suppliers market for med school. Engineering, math, comp sci and the sciences get the waivers because their skills are useful to the research goal of the university. So the things UND has don't get waivers and the things that NDSU has do. That doesn't account for all of it, or maybe even most of it, it doesn't explain why more ND students are getting waivers or why they have more statutory waivers.

not exactly a reasonable comparison. We're in the summit footprint. NDSU is not in the Metro Atlantic footprint. Our teams and our opponents often fly out of or in to a summit league town, often through another one. Two of the programs main rivals (NDSU and Denver) are in the conference, as are three of our primary historical opponents. (UNO, USD, and SDSU) We recruit summit and mvfc league territories, places where we almost never play games. You don't think that hurts us in Illinois or southern Wisconsin? the only downside to the summit/mvfc is the instability issue, which in any case would be essentially solved by UND joining. the valley can afford to lose ysu and msu, that after all is how many teams it had before wku left. I think EIU and Murray state would both jump at an a mvc/mfvc invite. We would be trading out UM, MSU, UNC, and EWU/Weber for NDSU, Denver, USD, SDSU, and UNO. You know, those schools that we've been playing sports with for about a century. ORU may be a repulsive clown college but they play good ball and are invested in their program, at least monetarily, maybe not so much with the fans. UMKC, WIU, IPFW and IUPUI are throwaways, but so are suu, idaho, ewu bb and weber fb, psu, nau and sac state. you really undermine the argument that UND is a better university when you criticize them for using math. If the big sky really is a better conference, you would think someone here would be able to find some sort of robust statistical measure or qualified, unbiased opinion in favor of the big sky being better.

NDSU has too many RB's right now I think, both to be an attractive place for a player or for the health of the team. I think only two of their 6-8 RB's for the fall are upperclassmen. All the rest will be RS sophomores or younger. I tend to be skeptical about play right away arguments, but i think it fits here. I wonder how interested he is in staying in brookings?

for a while much of sioux sports seemed to think that kleiman was the best choice and woudl be next coach and were pretty trilled. Then he suddenly went off the market and the coaching search went adrift.

anyone have a best guess for the starting 22?

keep in mind that there is a movement to make baseball a two season sport so they can do half the season in the fall and half in the spring. The big ten is behind it so it's got a good shot. There should be enough athletes to be at least regionally competitive. The lack of a realistic conference is a problem.

the tuition waver issue is meaningless if we don't know to whom they're going. For instance if the demand for engineering graduate students is high enough that in certain disciplines students get full tuition wavers and stipends, like some engineers at UND do, and if one field is predominant at UND or at NDSU, then you can have a pretty big differential pretty quick. I don't know if pharma at ndsu even has a grad program but if it does I could see that program having a big expensive tuition waver pool to get quality grad assistants if they are a big department. So the jury is out until you know where they are going (i've only heard anecdotes about foreign students, which could mean anything) for the last year with data for both schools, NDSU had a modest advantage in act score and gpa among new students, more applicants more admissions and more enrollment. Even giving UND the benefit of the doubt and calling the student bodies even, then why are the enrollment, admission and retention numbers so different? Enrollment should be biased to the lowest quality students you admit, so if NDSU is letting anyone in... then who is UND letting in? The aviation students probably account most of the deviation between the schools, since its i significantly different applicant body. moreover, how are none of you concerned that outside of aviation, more students want to go to ndsu and they on average have higher entrance measurements? I'm concerned about this and the future value of my degree, and that the rest of you just want to make excuses or divert attention instead of doing something about it is very disappointing. There is no excuse for UND losing ground to NDSU.

seems like a massive overreaction toward Gamma Phi, and that's someone who doesn't care about the nickname or the frozen four. this is a really easy issue, and it boggles my mind that so many of you refuse to understand it. It's willful ignorance.

2 dakota teams in, and UND can make it four. UND did much better in conference, so i would be skeptical of that hypothesis

comparison with peer countries. no, thats actually a very new-school train of thought.

i'm not sure you understand what keynes/hicks was getting at, because it wasn't that. Not really what the general theory was about. I think you are vastly overestimating the degree to which people make decisions like this on market incentives. I think people get into doctoring because they want to doctor. I'm not sure that this really holds. First off you have a wealth/income trade off. Yes your making less an hour, but now you need to work more to keep up. Second, I'm not sure how much freedom doctors have in setting their hours. I know in finance people work 60-70 hours a week because that what their employer and peers expect of them, take it or leave it. Law I have heard is similar though i'm less familiar with that. I think surgeons surgeoning a few hours less a week would probably be a very very good thing. I know what happens to me when i go that long, and it isn't any condition its want people doing important things in.

In this case the driver behind size isn't returns to scale, which likely occur early in the scale process, but again the negotiating leverage it gives insurers against hospitals. The bigger you are, the bigger a discount you can get. Similarly the bigger and better your hospital, the more you can get your provider to pay. The premium increases seem to have been worst in the smallest markets, where there is bound to be the least competition. Anyway Sanford wants to build a monster new hospital and Altru has been thinking about the same, so the price gets passed on because no one can say no. The ACA isn't nearly perfect (oh no some people lost their crappy plans) but it fixed the worst parts.

I have a tough time believing that BCBS went from being profitable in 2012 to losing enough money in 2013 to think it needs a 20% premium increase for 2014. I have a feeling that this is being driving by provider consolidation. Sanford's empire building had a purpose and many speculated (with good reason) that it was to give it more market leverage. I think market consolidation over the last 30~ years is one of the driving forces behind the increase in inequality over that time period, not surprised to see this now. nothing he said is untrue. off topic, perhaps. a subsidy is a subsidy is a subsidy. The method of disbursement really doesn't make a difference, it will still cause the exact same distortion. You get more money for picking an arbitrary course of action. That's a subsidy.

70% is pretty low. you now how you know someone is actually serious about deficits and budget issues? They consider raising revenue. Sometimes they even do in fact raise taxes, which does in fact improve budget situations. Crazy.

hockey fans aren't part of reality. They think their sport matters and more than a smattering of die-hards care. Neither is true.

the vocal minority of hockey only fans out making themselves look like rubes again. If UND men's BB was in a similar position, I would hope they would preempt some who-gives-a-!@#$ mid season NHL game. NCAA BB > NHL

not sure where you are coming from with the feds and mn are broke bit. MN is in a much better financial situation than they were (i think they even have a surplus now) and the feds have never been in bad shape, despite the best efforts of grand bargainers and misc. anti gov types to convince people otherwise.